The effect of hip muscle strengthening on pain and disability for individuals with non-specific low back pain : a randomized controlled trial

Introduction Clinical guidelines for the treatment of chronic low back pain suggest the use of supervised exercise. Motor control (MC) based exercise is widely used within clinical practice but its efficacy is equivalent to general exercise therapy. MC exercise targets the trunk musculature. Considering the mechanical links between the hip, pelvis, and lumbar spine, surprisingly little focus has been on investigating the contribution of the hip musculature to lumbopelvic support. The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy of two exercise programs for the treatment of non-specific low back pain (NSLBP). Methods Eighty individuals aged 18-65 years of age were randomized into two groups to participate in this trial. The primary outcome measures included self-reported pain intensity (0-100mm VAS) and percent disability (Oswestry Disability Index V2). Bilateral measures of hip strength (N/kg) and two dimensional frontal plane mechanics (º) were the secondary outcomes. Outcomes were measured at baseline and following a six-week home based exercise program including weekly sessions of real-time ultrasound imaging. Results Within group comparisons revealed clinically meaningful reductions in pain for both groups. The MC exercise only (N= 40, xˉ =-20.9mm, 95%CI -25.7, -16.1) and the combined MC and hip exercise (N= 40, xˉ = -24.9mm, 95%CI -30.8, -19.0). There was no statistical difference in the change of pain (xˉ =-4.0mm, t= -1.07, p=0.29, 95%CI -11.5, 3.5) or disability (xˉ =-0.3%, t=-0.19, p=0.85, 95%CI -11.5, 3.5) between groups. Conclusion Both exercise programs had similar and positive effects on NSLBP which support the use of the home based exercise programs with weekly supervised visits. However, the addition of specific hip strengthening exercises to a MC based exercise program did not result in significantly greater reductions in pain or disability. Trial Registration NCTO1567566 Funding: Worker’s Compensation Board Alberta Research Grant.

The effect of the addition of hip strengthening exercises to a lumbopelvic exercise programme for the treatment of non-specific low back pain : a randomized controlled trial

Objectives To compare the efficacy of two exercise programs in reducing pain and disability for individuals with non-specific low back pain and to examine the underlying mechanical factors related to pain and disability for individuals with NSLBP. Design A single-blind, randomized controlled trial. Methods: Eighty participants were recruited from eleven community-based general medical practices and randomized into two groups completing either a lumbopelvic motor control or a combined lumbopelvic motor control and progressive hip strengthening exercise therapy program. All participants received an education session, 6 rehabilitation sessions including real time ultrasound training, and a home based exercise program manual and log book. The primary outcomes were pain (0-100mm visual analogue scale), and disability (Oswestry Disability Index V2). The secondary outcomes were hip strength (N/kg) and two-dimensional frontal plane biomechanics (°) measure during the static Trendelenburg test and while walking. All outcomes were measured at baseline and at 6-week follow up. Results There was no statistical difference in the change in pain (xˉ = -4.0mm, t= -1.07, p =0.29, 95%CI -11.5, 3.5) or disability (xˉ = -0.3%, t= -0.19, p =0.85, 95%CI -3.5, 2.8) between groups. Within group comparisons revealed clinically meaningful reductions in pain for both Group One (xˉ =-20.9mm, 95%CI -25.7, -16.1) and Group Two (xˉ =-24.9, 95%CI -30.8, -19.0). Conclusion Both exercise programs had similar efficacy in reducing pain. The addition of hip strengthening exercises to a motor control exercise program does not appear to result in improved clinical outcome for pain for individuals with non-specific low back pain.

The mechanical and inflammatory low back pain (MIL) index: development and validation

Abstract Background The purpose of this study was the development of a valid and reliable “Mechanical and Inflammatory Low Back Pain Index” (MIL) for assessment of non-specific low back pain (NSLBP). This 7-item tool assists practitioners in determining whether symptoms are predominantly mechanical or inflammatory. Methods Participants (n = 170, 96 females, age = 38 ± 14 years-old) with NSLP were referred to two Spanish physiotherapy clinics and completed the MIL and the following measures: the Roland Morris Questionnaire (RMQ), SF-12 and “Backache Index” (BAI) physical assessment test. For test-retest reliability, 37 consecutive patients were assessed at baseline and three days later during a non-treatment period. Face and content validity, practical characteristics, factor analysis, internal consistency, discriminant validity and convergent validity were assessed from the full sample. Results A total of 27 potential items that had been identified for inclusion were subsequently reduced to 11 by an expert panel. Four items were then removed due to cross-loading under confirmatory factor analysis where a two-factor model yielded a good fit to the data (χ2 = 14.80, df = 13, p = 0.37, CFI = 0.98, and RMSEA = 0.029). The internal consistency was moderate (α = 0.68 for MLBP; 0.72 for ILBP), test-retest reliability high (ICC = 0.91; 95%CI = 0.88-0.93) and discriminant validity good for either MLBP (AUC = 0.74) and ILBP (AUC = 0.92). Convergent validity was demonstrated through similar but weak correlations between the ILBP and both the RMQ and BAI (r = 0.34, p < 0.001) and the MLBP and BAI (r = 0.38, p < 0.001). Conclusions The MIL is a valid and reliable clinical tool for patients with NSLBP that discriminates between mechanical and inflammatory LBP. Keywords: Low back pain; Psychometrics properties; Pain measurement; Screening tool; Inflammatory; Mechanical

Ability to discriminate between healthy and low back pain sufferers using ultrasound during maximum lumbar extension

Objective To analyze the ability to discriminate between healthy individuals and individuals with chronic nonspecific low back pain (CNLBP) by measuring the relation between patient-reported outcomes and objective clinical outcome measures of the erector spinae (ES) muscles using an ultrasound during maximal isometric lumbar extension. Design Cross-sectional study with screening and diagnostic tests with no blinded comparison. Setting University laboratory. Participants Healthy individuals (n=33) and individuals with CNLBP (n=33). Interventions Each subject performed an isometric lumbar extension. With the variables measured, a discriminate analysis was performed using a value ≥6 in the Roland and Morris disability questionnaire (RMDQ) as the grouping variable. Then, a logistic regression with the functional and architectural variables was performed. A new index was obtained from each subject value input in the discriminate multivariate analysis. Main Outcome Measures Morphologic muscle variables of the ES muscle were measured through ultrasound images. The reliability of the measures was calculated through intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). The relation between patient-reported outcomes and objective clinical outcome measures was analyzed using a discriminate function from standardized values of the variables and an analysis of the reliability of the ultrasound measurement. Results The reliability tests show an ICC value >.95 for morphologic and functional variables. The independent variables included in the analysis explained 42% (P=.003) of the dependent variable variance. Conclusions The relation between objective variables (electromyography, thickness, pennation angle) and a subjective variable (RMDQ ≥6) and the capacity of this relation to identify CNLBP within a group of healthy subjects is moderate. These results should be considered by clinicians when treating this type of patient in clinical practice.

Psychological distress and pain reporting in Australian coal miners

BACKGROUND: Coal mining is of significant economic importance to the Australian economy. Despite this fact, the related workforce is subjected to a number of psychosocial risks and musculoskeletal injury, and various psychological disorders are common among this population group. Because only limited research has been conducted in this population group, we sought to examine the relationship between physical (pain) and psychological (distress) factors, as well as the effects of various demographic, lifestyle, and fatigue indicators on this relationship. METHODS: Coal miners (N = 231) participated in a survey of musculoskeletal pain and distress on-site during their work shifts. Participants also provided demographic information (job type, age, experience in the industry, and body mass index) and responded to questions about exercise and sleep quality (on- and off-shift) as well as physical and mental tiredness after work. RESULTS: A total of 177 workers (80.5%) reported experiencing pain in at least one region of their body. The majority of the sample population (61.9%) was classified as having low-level distress, 28.4% had scores indicating mild to moderate distress, and 9.6% had scores indicating high levels of distress. Both number of pain regions and job type (being an operator) significantly predicted distress. Higher distress score was also associated with greater absenteeism in workers who reported lower back pain. In addition, perceived sleep quality during work periods partially mediated the relationship between pain and distress. CONCLUSION: The study findings support the existence of widespread musculoskeletal pain among the coal-mining workforce, and this pain is associated with increased psychological distress. Operators (truck drivers) and workers reporting poor sleep quality during work periods are most likely to report increased distress, which highlights the importance of supporting the mining workforce for sustained productivity.

Randomized controlled trial of interferential therapy and manipulative therapy for acute low back pain.

Study Design. A multi-center assessor-blinded randomized clinical trial was conducted. Objectives. To investigate the relative effectiveness of interferential therapy and manipulative therapy for patients with acute low back pain when used as sole treatments and in combination. Summary of Background Data. Both manipulative therapy and interferential therapy are commonly used treatments for low back pain. Evidence for the effectiveness of manipulative therapy is available only for the short term. There is no evidence for interferential therapy and no study has investigated the effectiveness of interferential therapy combined with manipulative therapy. Methods. Consenting subjects (n=240) were randomly assigned to receive a copy of the Back Book and either manipulative therapy (MT; n=80), interferential therapy (IFT; n=80) or combined manipulative therapy and interferential therapy (CT; n=80). Follow-up outcome questionnaires were posted at discharge, 6 and 12 months. Results. The groups were balanced at baseline for low back pain and demographic characteristics. All interventions were found to significantly reduce functional disability and pain and increase quality of life at discharge and to maintain these improvements at 6 and 12 months. No significant differences were found between groups for reported LBP recurrence, work absenteeism, medication consumption, exercise participation and healthcare use at 12 months. Conclusions. For acute low back pain, interferential therapy whether used in isolation or in combination with manipulative therapy was as effective as manipulative therapy alone (in addition to the Back Book).

A descriptive study of the usage of spinal manipulative therapy techniques within a randomised clinical trial in acute low back pain

The majority of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of spinal manipulative therapy have not adequately de?ned the terms ‘mobilization’ and ‘manipulation’, nor distinguished between these terms in reporting the trial interventions. The purpose of this study was to describe the spinal manipulative therapy techniques utilized within a RCT of manipulative therapy (MT; n=80), interferential therapy (IFT; n=80), and a combination of both (CT; n=80) for people with acute low back pain (LBP). Spinal manipulative therapy was de?ned as any ‘mobilization’ (low velocity manual force without a thrust) or ‘manipulation’ (high velocity
thrust) techniques of the spine described by Maitland and Cyriax.
The 16 physiotherapists, all members of the Society of Orthopaedic Medicine, utilized three spinal manipulative therapy patterns in the RCT: Maitland Mobilization (40.4%, n=59), Maitland Mobilization/Cyriax Manipulation (40.4%, n=59) and Cyriax Manipulation (19.1%, n=28). There was a signi?cant difference between the MT and CT groups in their usage of spinal manipulative therapy techniques (w2=9.178; df=2;P=0.01); subjects randomized to the CT group received three times more Cyriax Manipulation (29.2%, n=21/72) than those randomized to the MT group (9.5%, n=7/74; df=1; P=0.003).
The use of mobilization techniques within the trial was comparable with their usage by the general population of physiotherapists in Britain and Ireland for LBP management. However, the usage of manipulation techniques was considerably higher than reported in physiotherapy surveys and may re?ect the postgraduate training of trial therapists.

The back 2 activity trial: education and advice versus education and advice plus a structured walking programme for chronic low back pain.:education and advice versus education and advice plus a structured walking programme for chronic low back pain

BACKGROUND: Current evidence supports the use of exercise-based treatment for chronic low back pain that encourages the patient to assume an active role in their recovery. Walking has been shown it to be an acceptable type of exercise with a low risk of injury. However, it is not known whether structured physical activity programmes are any more effective than giving advice to remain active.

METHODS/DESIGN: The proposed study will test the feasibility of using a pedometer-driven walking programme, as an adjunct to a standard education and advice session in participants with chronic low back pain. Fifty adult participants will be recruited via a number of different sources. Baseline outcome measures including self reported function; objective physical activity levels; fear-avoidance beliefs and health-related quality of life will be recorded. Eligible participants will be randomly allocated under strict, double blind conditions to one of two treatments groups. Participants in group A will receive a single education and advice session with a physiotherapist based on the content of the 'Back Book'. Participants in group B will receive the same education and advice session. In addition, they will also receive a graded pedometer-driven walking programme prescribed by the physiotherapist. Follow up outcomes will be recorded by the same researcher, who will remain blinded to group allocation, at eight weeks and six months post randomisation. A qualitative exploration of participants' perception of walking will also be examined by use of focus groups at the end of the intervention. As a feasibility study, treatment effects will be represented by point estimates and confidence intervals. The assessment of participant satisfaction will be tabulated, as will adherence levels and any recorded difficulties or adverse events experienced by the participants or therapists. This information will be used to modify the planned interventions to be used in a larger randomised controlled trial.

DISCUSSION: This paper describes the rationale and design of a study which will test the feasibility of using a structured, pedometer-driven walking programme in participants with chronic low back pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: [ISRCTN67030896].

Physiotherapy for Sleep Disturbance in People With Chronic Low Back Pain:Results of a Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective: To determine the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial investigating the effectiveness of physiotherapy for sleep disturbance in chronic low back pain (CLBP) (=12wks). Design: Randomized controlled trial with evaluations at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. Setting: Outpatient physiotherapy department in an academic teaching hospital. Participants: Participants with CLBP were randomly assigned to a walking program (n=20; mean age ± SD, 46.4±13.8y), supervised exercise class (n=20; mean age ± SD, 41.3±11.9y), or usual physiotherapy (n=20; mean age ± SD, 47.1±14.3y). The 3-month evaluation was completed by 44 participants (73%), and 42 (70%) participants completed the 6-month evaluation. Interventions: Participants received a physiotherapy-delivered 8-week walking program, an 8-week group supervised exercise class (1 class/wk), or 1-to-1 usual physiotherapy (advice, manual therapy, and exercise). Main Outcome Measures: Sleep was assessed by the self-reported Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), Pittsburgh Sleep Diary, and objective actigraphy. Results: Groups were comparable at baseline. Most (95%, n=57) of the participants had sleep disturbance. The acceptability of actigraphy was excellent at baseline (58 of 60 participants), but dropped at 3 months (26 of 44 participants). There were improvements on the PSQI and ISI in all groups at 3 and 6 months, with predominantly medium effect sizes (Cohen d=0.2-0.5). Conclusions: The high prevalence of sleep disturbance indicated the feasibility of good recruitment in future trials. The PSQI would be a suitable screening tool and outcome measure alongside an objective nonobtrusive sleep outcome measure. The effectiveness of physiotherapy for sleep disturbance in CLBP warrants investigation in a fully powered randomized controlled trial. © 2013 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine.